Morgan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
2015 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 32
Pa. Commw. Ct.2015Background
- Claimant Morgan, last employed as a foreman for Coal Innovations, LLC, from Oct 18, 2010, to Mar 28, 2018, at $22/hour.
- Morgan initially commuted with the employer’s Director of Processing; later used the company vehicle, gas, and EZ Pass for commuting (started ~July 2011).
- In Sept 2012, the employer was purchased by another company but terms remained largely the same; on Mar 28, 2013, Morgan was informed he could no longer use the company vehicle, fuel, and EZ Pass.
- Morgan quit the employment after being informed of the transportation change; the employer suggested he could commute with the Director and offered alternatives.
- Morgan testified he owned two vehicles and quit because he could not afford transportation to the workplace under the new arrangement; the employer projected Morgan could ride with the Director.
- The UC Board denied Morgan benefits under § 402(b), finding he quit for transportation reasons, not due to a necessitous and compelling reason related to a unilateral change in terms and conditions of employment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantial evidence for finding 7 | Morgan argues finding 7 (agency suggested commuting with Director) is not supported by evidence. | Board credited testimony showing a suggested ride with Director; credibility issues resolved against Morgan. | Finding 7 supported by substantial evidence. |
| Substantial evidence for finding 9 | Morgan contends finding 9 (quit due to unaffordable transportation) is not supported; instead cessation of benefit caused resignation. | Board relied on Morgan’s own testimony and petition to support transportation-based reasoning. | Finding 9 supported by substantial evidence. |
| Unilateral change analysis vs transportation problem | Morgan asserts Board misanalyzed injury as transportation problem rather than substantial unilateral change in employment terms. | Board separately analyzed both theories and concluded no substantial unilateral change occurred due to alternative transportation options. | Board properly analyzed both theories and found no substantial unilateral change. |
| Necessitous and compelling reason to quit | Morgan contends unilateral loss of commuting benefits 50%+ reduction constitutes necessitous and compelling reason to resign. | Board found loss of transportation benefits not a salary reduction and required reasonable effort to preserve employment; no substantial unilateral change established. | Morgan did not prove a necessitous and compelling reason. |
| Reasonable effort to preserve employment | Morgan did not need to explore ineffective options; employer’s offer to ride with Director should have been pursued. | Morgan did not demonstrate reasonable efforts to preserve employment beyond accepting the Director option. | Morgan failed to show reasonable effort to preserve employment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Western & Southern Life Insurance Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 913 A.2d 331 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2006) (substantial evidence standard for Board findings)
- Guthrie v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, unknown (Pa.Cmwlth.) (substantial evidence framework referenced)
- United States Banknote Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 575 A.2d 673 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1990) (weight and credibility of evidence)
- Mauro v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 751 A.2d 276 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2000) (reasonable effort to preserve employment analysis)
- Brunswick Hotel & Conference Center, LLC v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 906 A.2d 657 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2006) (need to preserve employment when facing changes)
- A-Positive Electric v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 654 A.2d 299 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1995) (substantial unilateral changes in terms of employment)
- Steinberg Vision Associates v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 624 A.2d 237 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1993) (benefit loss as necessitous and compelling reason)
- Chavez (Token) v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 738 A.2d 77 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999) (benefit loss as necessitous and compelling reason)
- Love v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 520 A.2d 107 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1987) (transportation and commuting as factors in necessitous reasons)
- J.C. Penney Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 457 A.2d 161 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1983) (commuting changes considered in necessitous reasons)